Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1382 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 July 2017 Date of orders: 19 July 2017 Decision date: 19 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd & Alexander Catania (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr J Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/82842 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:
Plan, Revision and Issue No.
Plan Name
Date Issued
Prepared by
DA010, rev 3
Site Plan and Analysis
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA012, rev 3
Basement 2
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA012, rev 3
Basement 1
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA100, rev 3
Ground Floor Plan
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA101, rev 3
Level 1
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA102, rev 3
Level 2
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA103, rev 3
Level 3
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA104, rev 3
Level 4
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA105, rev 3
Level 5
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA106, rev 3
Level 6
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA107, rev 3
Level 6 Upper
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA108, rev 3
Roof plan
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA200, rev 3
East elevation
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA201, rev 3
South elevation
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA202, rev 3
West elevation
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA203, rev 3
North elevation
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA300, rev 3
Section A
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
DA900, rev 3
Finishes schedule
23/5/17
BKA Architecture
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application DA201700013 lodged 13 January 2017 seeking approval for the demolition of existing warehouse and commercial shops. Consolidation of eight (8) lots into one site and the construction of a part four (4) storey, part seven (7) and part eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising five (5) ground floor retail tenancies, 6 serviced apartments, 56 residential apartments, basement car park, associated landscaping and subdivision is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
82842.17 Dixon (C) (371 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1382
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1382
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Council had exercised its discretion properly by taking into account all relevant considerations and whether the decision was free from bias and irrelevant considerations. Another key issue was whether the Council's reasons for refusal were transparent and adequate to enable effective review.
The Court found that the Council's decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The Council had failed to consider relevant statutory requirements and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The Court noted that the Council had not assessed the proposal against the relevant planning controls and had not properly considered the merits of the development application. The Court also found that the Council had exhibited bias by failing to disclose relevant information to the applicant. The Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The Court ordered that the Council reconsider the development application in accordance with the law, taking into account all relevant considerations, and provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Court also ordered that the applicant's costs of the proceeding be paid by the Council.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) below
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.